Martlet/Lightweight multirole missile

Contains threads on Joint Service equipment of the past, present and future.
S M H
Member
Posts: 428
Joined: 03 May 2015, 12:59
Has liked: 16 times
Been liked: 4 times
United Kingdom

Re: Martlet/Lightweight multirole missile

Post by S M H »

Caribbean wrote:And perhaps, the B2 Rivers, if they are to have a genuinely world-wide role - it seems like a logical upgrade to all existing 30mm mounts. Now if we can also develop a point-defence variant....
Having looked round the amazon's when stored in Devonshire dock Barrow in Furness, The fitting of two mountings aft of the bridge would provide a good upgrade as the firing arks looked good. A cheap upgrade if they get used on low risk constabulary duties.

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1292
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
Has liked: 20 times
Been liked: 55 times
United Kingdom

Re: Martlet/Lightweight multirole missile

Post by RichardIC »

So if I'm reading this correctly the important bit isn't the gun - because the missile launcher is just a parasitic attachment to the mount - but the siting of the laser transmitter.

Presumably this has been located in the EOR that's used to control the gun from a console in the ops room. So will Marlet be controlled from a the same console or has it required two addition consoles to be fitted?

And this, again presumably, means Martlet isn't compatible with the older manually-aimed 30mm mounts that are still fitted to Type 45s, MCMVs, pre-Tide RFAs etc, but only with the newer Bushmaster mounts.

I think.

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

Re: Martlet/Lightweight multirole missile

Post by RetroSicotte »

Honestly was news to me that the ones on the Darings were manual. I've even been on board one and didn't notice!

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1292
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
Has liked: 20 times
Been liked: 55 times
United Kingdom

Re: Martlet/Lightweight multirole missile

Post by RichardIC »

RetroSicotte wrote:Honestly was news to me that the ones on the Darings were manual. I've even been on board one and didn't notice!
TBH not sure myself and the question seems to been mulled over on this board before. There are EORs on each beam above the bridge so maybe it is an option on the 45s, although there would be less need for Marlet with them being Phalanxed-up.

User avatar
Old RN
Member
Posts: 226
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:39
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
South Africa

Re: Martlet/Lightweight multirole missile

Post by Old RN »

Will QE get this fitted to her 4 x 30mm mountings?

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

Re: Martlet/Lightweight multirole missile

Post by RetroSicotte »

Old RN wrote:Will QE get this fitted to her 4 x 30mm mountings?
Lower to zero priority, I'd say. If ANYTHING of the sort of nature this thing hits (FICs etc) gets that close to QE, then she's in the wrong place. The Autocannons are fine as they are for Counter-SBIED (is that a term?) ala USS Cole.

She's no-where near the frontlines for that. QE should be focused only on harbour guard and anti-missile only, at least in terms of priority to mounting them on other ships.

User avatar
Old RN
Member
Posts: 226
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:39
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
South Africa

Re: Martlet/Lightweight multirole missile

Post by Old RN »

RetroSicotte wrote:
Old RN wrote:Will QE get this fitted to her 4 x 30mm mountings?
Lower to zero priority, I'd say. If ANYTHING of the sort of nature this thing hits (FICs etc) gets that close to QE, then she's in the wrong place. The Autocannons are fine as they are for Counter-SBIED (is that a term?) ala USS Cole.

She's no-where near the frontlines for that. QE should be focused only on harbour guard and anti-missile only, at least in terms of priority to mounting them on other ships.
But this mounting/guidance also takes the Starstreak HVM which could be a usefull SAM for them, given they have little else!

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 485
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
Has liked: 21 times
Been liked: 16 times
United Kingdom

Re: Martlet/Lightweight multirole missile

Post by jimthelad »

T45 has an optionally manned turret as do the T23 and all other except the B2 rivers. The pannier sits in place of the seat and manual fire controls. It was the loss of this that caused the reticence in the RN. You can see this in the documentary about HMS Duncan in the Black Sea. I wouldn't think there would be much enthusiasm to man the guns in a CBRN environment or if there a bits of metal pining around, so they have dropped the manned option I believe.

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

Re: Martlet/Lightweight multirole missile

Post by RetroSicotte »

Old RN wrote:But this mounting/guidance also takes the Starstreak HVM which could be a usefull SAM for them, given they have little else!
Firing at what? Starstreak is a manual operation SACLOS. It doesn't shoot down missiles.

In what possible world will there be something in the air that is not a missile within 8km of an aircraft carrier that has not already been turned away or engaged by an F-35 or an escort? It's a wholly unnecessary expense that if you're going to expend on QE, would be better used for something else that actually has a missile engagement potential.

User avatar
Old RN
Member
Posts: 226
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:39
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
South Africa

Re: Martlet/Lightweight multirole missile

Post by Old RN »

RetroSicotte wrote:
Old RN wrote:But this mounting/guidance also takes the Starstreak HVM which could be a usefull SAM for them, given they have little else!
Firing at what? Starstreak is a manual operation SACLOS. It doesn't shoot down missiles.

In what possible world will there be something in the air that is not a missile within 8km of an aircraft carrier that has not already been turned away or engaged by an F-35 or an escort? It's a wholly unnecessary expense that if you're going to expend on QE, would be better used for something else that actually has a missile engagement potential.
Starstreak HVM is a laser beam rider and is controlled by the ships EO units. In that sense it is not far from the Sea Wolf in terms of range and guidance capability.

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

Re: Martlet/Lightweight multirole missile

Post by RetroSicotte »

Old RN wrote:Starstreak HVM is a laser beam rider and is controlled by the ships EO units. In that sense it is not far from the Sea Wolf in terms of range and guidance capability.
And yet would require an enormous amount of investment, software, and integration costs to redesign it into being at best an 'eh' thing for anti-missile work. Especially as Starstreak has no proximity fuse. Excels at its intended targets, but not in this case. It's a long way for a shortcut with very little application on that ship.

If you want missile defence on the QE, buy proper missile defence. Not waste money on things that aren't supposed to be doing that.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7286
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 317 times
Been liked: 351 times
United Kingdom

Re: Martlet/Lightweight multirole missile

Post by Lord Jim »

From looking at the manual, the remote weapon station equipped with LMM would be controlled by their own EO turrets to which it would probably be easier to integrate the gun mounts they are attached to rather than trying to integrate LMM into the ships existing EO/gunnery systems. Does anyone have the actual date on how the installation of the LMM was carried out on the T-23 and whether this was purely a trials fit, a UOR lash up prior to deployment or the full system? However as both LMM and Starstreak are laser bean riders, once the LMM is actually fully adopted, besides a software patch there would be little difficulty in using Starstreak from the same launcher I fit was decides there was a need to do so, in my opinion.

User avatar
Old RN
Member
Posts: 226
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:39
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
South Africa

Re: Martlet/Lightweight multirole missile

Post by Old RN »

Did the fit on HMS Sutherland use the existing, fitted, EO system that the 30mm normally uses or was it an extra EO installation?

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1292
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
Has liked: 20 times
Been liked: 55 times
United Kingdom

Re: Martlet/Lightweight multirole missile

Post by RichardIC »

Old RN wrote:Did the fit on HMS Sutherland use the existing, fitted, EO system that the 30mm normally uses or was it an extra EO installation?
Exactly the same question I asked and don't know the answer.

But these "fit it to all 30mm" demands are missing the point that the gun is not the issue - it's just provides a convenient mount - it's the sighting, which is off mount.

You may as well bolt a bookcase to a 30mm mount that's manually sighted. Jimthelad says T45s have EO guidance for their 30mms. River B2s definately do. Not sure about MCMVs - think they're manual only.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6113
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 9 times
Pitcairn Island

Re: Martlet/Lightweight multirole missile

Post by shark bait »

Lord Jim wrote:and whether this was purely a trials fit, a UOR lash up prior to deployment or the full system?
Purely for trials. It looks like there's a door behind the launcher, along with a bunch of other equipment, I doubt that can be considered safe for operational use.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Old RN
Member
Posts: 226
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:39
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
South Africa

Re: Martlet/Lightweight multirole missile

Post by Old RN »

I suspect that the real technical challenge is the separation of EO system and the launcher, with the difficulty being the "gathering" of the missile into the laser beam for missile guidance. This is why I doubt the Starstreak HVM with its rapid (and I think unguided) boost to separation of the guided darts at Mach 4 would make such a separation of the EO line of sight launch point possible. Hence tge confused comments in the initial press statement about the slower LMM allowing better SACLOS missile guidance.

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 485
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
Has liked: 21 times
Been liked: 16 times
United Kingdom

Re: Martlet/Lightweight multirole missile

Post by jimthelad »

Some if not all of the gear such as boxes and cables was likely to be coaxial testing rig sets. We used something similar for testing ATGM.

BlueD954
Member
Posts: 233
Joined: 02 Oct 2020, 05:11
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Singapore

Re: Martlet/Lightweight multirole missile

Post by BlueD954 »

https://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTIC ... HTML&src=0

Important

II.1.4)
Short description of the contract or purchase(s):
Storage containers. The Lightweight and Medium Attack (LMAS) Delivery Team, part of the Weapons Operating Centre in DE&S (hereafter referred to as 'the Authority') has a requirement for the manufacture of Bulk Module Storage (BMS) Containers for storage helicopter weapon equipment on board Royal Naval (RN) Ships.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2723
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Has liked: 75 times
Been liked: 260 times
United Kingdom

Re: Martlet/Lightweight multirole missile

Post by Timmymagic »

Interesting pic here...not seen them all lined up before. Hadn't really appreciated that Martlet is actually substantially larger than Starburst, I thought they'd just re-purposed the same missile body. Not sure why they've covered over Javelin's name either...they really need to sort that wallpaper out too...

Image


RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1040
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Has liked: 34 times
Been liked: 38 times

Re: Martlet/Lightweight multirole missile

Post by RunningStrong »

Timmymagic wrote:. Not sure why they've covered over Javelin's name either...they really need to sort that wallpaper out too...
I'm going to guess and say too many questions related to the ATGM.

GarethDavies1
Member
Posts: 55
Joined: 26 May 2021, 11:45
Has liked: 10 times
Been liked: 15 times
United Kingdom

Re: Martlet/Lightweight multirole missile

Post by GarethDavies1 »

To me an improved Starburst with some modifications would make a good inner layer defense missile for ships - or even an improved LMM with a larger warhead and a slightly more powerful rocket motor.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6431
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Has liked: 39 times
Been liked: 32 times
United States of America

Re: Martlet/Lightweight multirole missile

Post by Ron5 »

Timmymagic wrote:.they really need to sort that wallpaper out too...
Maybe the 3rd picture had something to do with that :D

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2723
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Has liked: 75 times
Been liked: 260 times
United Kingdom

Re: Martlet/Lightweight multirole missile

Post by Timmymagic »

GarethDavies1 wrote:To me an improved Starburst with some modifications would make a good inner layer defense missile for ships - or even an improved LMM with a larger warhead and a slightly more powerful rocket motor.
In something like this?
Seastreak CIWS....from 1989, concept started in c1986...35 years ago...

Image

GarethDavies1
Member
Posts: 55
Joined: 26 May 2021, 11:45
Has liked: 10 times
Been liked: 15 times
United Kingdom

Re: Martlet/Lightweight multirole missile

Post by GarethDavies1 »

Maybe maybe not...I was just thinking that are 3 small darts more effective than one missile with a 3 to 4kg warhead....or is it all bullshit and in reality any kind of CIWS is a waste of time.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2723
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Has liked: 75 times
Been liked: 260 times
United Kingdom

Re: Martlet/Lightweight multirole missile

Post by Timmymagic »

GarethDavies1 wrote:Maybe maybe not...I was just thinking that are 3 small darts more effective than one missile with a 3 to 4kg warhead....or is it all bullshit and in reality any kind of CIWS is a waste of time.
Depends on the target. Each Starstreak dart has a bursting charge equivalent to a 40mm Bofors round fused to detonate after penetration. That will take absolutely any missile down.

CIWS are absolutely still a good idea, not just for missile defence but for defence against FAC, UAS and targets in close (close to land for example where terrain can mask a threat). But also the number of high supersonic (let alone hypersonic) missiles actually in service worldwide is miniscule compared to the numbers of subsonic missiles out there...the way people talk you'd assume they'd all been retired...in reality they'll still be the principal threat for a fair few years yet.

Post Reply